> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> It's probably best to just check for dxfer_len <= 2^28 to be valid
JT> as Doug suggested:
I can verify that patch on top of git head (as of a few hours ago) does
function properly.
It didn't apply directly on top of 4.12 but even
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> It's probably best to just check for dxfer_len <= 2^28 to be valid
JT> as Doug suggested:
I can verify that patch on top of git head (as of a few hours ago) does
function properly.
It didn't apply directly on top of 4.12 but even I can handle fixing
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:25:07PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
> ioctl(3, SG_IO, {interface_id='S', dxfer_direction=SG_DXFER_TO_DEV,
> cmd_len=12, cmdp="\xa5\x00\x00\x00\x00\x01\x03\xe9\x00\x00\x00\x00",
> mx_sb_len=20,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:25:07PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
> ioctl(3, SG_IO, {interface_id='S', dxfer_direction=SG_DXFER_TO_DEV,
> cmd_len=12, cmdp="\xa5\x00\x00\x00\x00\x01\x03\xe9\x00\x00\x00\x00",
> mx_sb_len=20, iovec_count=0,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 03:09:00PM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> _TO_ is toward the device (i.e. WRITE) and what T10 call "data-out".
> _FROM_ is from the device (e.g. INQUIRY) and what T10 call "data-in".
>
> _TO_FROM_ is basically _FROM_ (and has nothing to do with bidi).
> _TO_FROM_ is very
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 03:09:00PM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> _TO_ is toward the device (i.e. WRITE) and what T10 call "data-out".
> _FROM_ is from the device (e.g. INQUIRY) and what T10 call "data-in".
>
> _TO_FROM_ is basically _FROM_ (and has nothing to do with bidi).
> _TO_FROM_ is very
On 2017-07-19 04:36 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 03:13:34AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
[ 46.304530] sg_is_valid_dxfer: dxfer_direction: -2, dxfer_len: 0
Ahh now I see the -2 (SG_DXFER_TO_DEV) is the crucial point here. It is 0 in
your case.
This would "fix"
On 2017-07-19 04:36 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 03:13:34AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
[ 46.304530] sg_is_valid_dxfer: dxfer_direction: -2, dxfer_len: 0
Ahh now I see the -2 (SG_DXFER_TO_DEV) is the crucial point here. It is 0 in
your case.
This would "fix"
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> Yes please (on top of the snippet I've sent you last).
OK, I'm at 4.12 with 68c59fcea1f2c6a54c62aa896cc623c1b5bc9b47 cherry
picked, plus the fix patch and the debug patch you've sent previously.
To make sure we're on the same
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> Yes please (on top of the snippet I've sent you last).
OK, I'm at 4.12 with 68c59fcea1f2c6a54c62aa896cc623c1b5bc9b47 cherry
picked, plus the fix patch and the debug patch you've sent previously.
To make sure we're on the same page, I'll include the
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 02:23:16PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I can also apply the debugging patch and try again if that would give
> you more useful information.
Yes please (on top of the snippet I've sent you last).
Thanks a lot,
Johannes
--
Johannes Thumshirn
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 02:23:16PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I can also apply the debugging patch and try again if that would give
> you more useful information.
Yes please (on top of the snippet I've sent you last).
Thanks a lot,
Johannes
--
Johannes Thumshirn
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> Jason, can you try the above? If it works and Doug doesn't respond,
JT> I'm inclined yo submit this band aid.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear to work for me. Maybe I'm building the
wrong thing, though. I checked out 4.12, cherry
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> Jason, can you try the above? If it works and Doug doesn't respond,
JT> I'm inclined yo submit this band aid.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear to work for me. Maybe I'm building the
wrong thing, though. I checked out 4.12, cherry picked
Doug,
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:36:54AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 03:13:34AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > [ 46.304530] sg_is_valid_dxfer: dxfer_direction: -2, dxfer_len: 0
>
> Ahh now I see the -2 (SG_DXFER_TO_DEV) is the crucial point here. It is 0
Doug,
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:36:54AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 03:13:34AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > [ 46.304530] sg_is_valid_dxfer: dxfer_direction: -2, dxfer_len: 0
>
> Ahh now I see the -2 (SG_DXFER_TO_DEV) is the crucial point here. It is 0
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 03:13:34AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> [ 46.304530] sg_is_valid_dxfer: dxfer_direction: -2, dxfer_len: 0
Ahh now I see the -2 (SG_DXFER_TO_DEV) is the crucial point here. It is 0 in
your case.
This would "fix" it but I'm not generally sure it is _the_ solution:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 03:13:34AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> [ 46.304530] sg_is_valid_dxfer: dxfer_direction: -2, dxfer_len: 0
Ahh now I see the -2 (SG_DXFER_TO_DEV) is the crucial point here. It is 0 in
your case.
This would "fix" it but I'm not generally sure it is _the_ solution:
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> Can you please apply this debugging patch, so I can see what's going
JT> on.
Sure, no problem.
I generally run "mtx -f /dev/sg7 status" first just to make sure the
library is there; this has always worked as expected. With the
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> Can you please apply this debugging patch, so I can see what's going
JT> on.
Sure, no problem.
I generally run "mtx -f /dev/sg7 status" first just to make sure the
library is there; this has always worked as expected. With the debug
patch applied,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:33:59PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I have verified that building a clean v4.12 with
> 68c59fcea1f2c6a54c62aa896cc623c1b5bc9b47 cherry picked on top still
> shows the problem:
>
> [root@backup2 ~]# mtx -f /dev/sg7 next 0
> Unloading drive 0 into Storage Element
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:33:59PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I have verified that building a clean v4.12 with
> 68c59fcea1f2c6a54c62aa896cc623c1b5bc9b47 cherry picked on top still
> shows the problem:
>
> [root@backup2 ~]# mtx -f /dev/sg7 next 0
> Unloading drive 0 into Storage Element
I have verified that building a clean v4.12 with
68c59fcea1f2c6a54c62aa896cc623c1b5bc9b47 cherry picked on top still
shows the problem:
[root@backup2 ~]# mtx -f /dev/sg7 next 0
Unloading drive 0 into Storage Element 45...mtx: Request Sense: Long
Report=yes
mtx: Request Sense: Valid Residual=no
I have verified that building a clean v4.12 with
68c59fcea1f2c6a54c62aa896cc623c1b5bc9b47 cherry picked on top still
shows the problem:
[root@backup2 ~]# mtx -f /dev/sg7 next 0
Unloading drive 0 into Storage Element 45...mtx: Request Sense: Long
Report=yes
mtx: Request Sense: Valid Residual=no
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> This is fixed with: commit 68c59fcea1f2c6a54c62aa896cc623c1b5bc9b47
Hmm, well, I just pulled and built mainline, which does appear to
contain that patch (though it wasn't there when I first started
investigating this last week)
> "JT" == Johannes Thumshirn writes:
JT> This is fixed with: commit 68c59fcea1f2c6a54c62aa896cc623c1b5bc9b47
Hmm, well, I just pulled and built mainline, which does appear to
contain that patch (though it wasn't there when I first started
investigating this last week) and the problem is
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:44:50PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> and confirmed that clean unpatched 4.12 shows the problem, while
> reverting just that patch fixes the issue. Unfortunately I don't know
> enough to actually fix this, but I can easily test patches.
This is fixed with:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:44:50PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> and confirmed that clean unpatched 4.12 shows the problem, while
> reverting just that patch fixes the issue. Unfortunately I don't know
> enough to actually fix this, but I can easily test patches.
This is fixed with:
After updating my tape backup server to 4.12 I found that mtx had issues
controlling the tape library. Good behavior:
[root@backup2 ~]# mtx -f /dev/sg7 next 0
Unloading drive 0 into Storage Element 4...done
Loading media from Storage Element 5 into drive 0...done
Bad behavior:
[root@backup2
After updating my tape backup server to 4.12 I found that mtx had issues
controlling the tape library. Good behavior:
[root@backup2 ~]# mtx -f /dev/sg7 next 0
Unloading drive 0 into Storage Element 4...done
Loading media from Storage Element 5 into drive 0...done
Bad behavior:
[root@backup2
30 matches
Mail list logo